It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WikiLeaks founder says he did right thing. Named man is already dead.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:54 AM
While I think it's important and healthy to have discussions about Assange and Wikileak's motives, it's equally important to expose the smear campaign being ramped up against him. Especially when the smear campaign is aimed at the man and not the information he releases. If you can't discredit the info, discredit the messenger I suppose.

Money as the only acceptable motivation... indeed, MSM, indeed.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:16 PM
This whole Wikileaks thing is nothing but a distraction from what Obama and his cronies, Democrats and Republicans (acting like enemies, yet serving the same purpose), are doing behind the scenes to turn our nation over to the New World Order. I have noticed that, in the past, every time there is a major event (like this) that the MSM pays so much attention to in the media, online or otherwise, as well as the populace, .... the world gets sidetracked like a cobra mesmerized buy the rythmic sway of a flute. When one snaps back to reality.........yet another bill has been passed that the public didn't notice, that shreds our constitution and ursurps our right to freedom, as well as, shifts us one more grid block towards the NWO. Why? because they were entranced by the latest scam, popularity contest or government cover-up of a lesser nature..........and distracted for the 5 millionth time. It's almost like they are using a Muhammed Ali tactic on us..."watch the hand, watch it, watch it".........then BAM.....strikes with the other hand. Indeed, America has been "hit in the head" so many times that we are dumb to a concept that has been practiced on us so many times. Essentially we're brain dead. These are all distractions......look around for something different, Obama is doing SOMETHING greater here and you're all being occupied with smoke and mirrors. What would be Obama's next best move?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Phenomium]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:28 PM
S&F OP !

Every time a hear "national security" on american TV... I just cant stop laughing. The biggest treat against american is from within... not foreign. Well, maybe a little bit foreign, but hey ! That what you get from bullying others. I dont see taliban attacking Brezil, Perou .... are other countries like these. Anyhow ...

Julian Assange is just a treat to political figures and conventional news. The war has to stop, people from all over the world are begging for it to stop and they dont get enough "news air/article" to prove-it. There almost not consider at least. Good thing that Julian Assange bring an alternative way.

The people who leaked the docs to wikileak deserve a medal of honor on a planetary scale. Huge "salut" to these true americans ! Hope it will encourage other to do the same. Also hope Maning get back home before some kind of story about "a roof falling on is head" is being told.

Aldo I try to remain sceptic about all this, I cant help my self to easily believe in Julian Assange true intention. I mean the guy walk like Jesus is portrait, no home, no country no attachment if it's only but the truth and human kind best interest. You have to have lot of courage to face all this in the publics eyes.

To me, is proved once again how politics is corrupted ... but with facts !

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by fraggdya
I wish you good speed.I had some thoughts and was drafting up a post, not sure if it fits here . remove it if its not pertinent ...MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media..."The masked ball is at its peak: Preening each other, Obama and Netanyahu have proved that even their heavy layer of makeup can no longer hide the wrinkles. The worn-out, wizened old face of the longest 'peace process' in history has been awarded another surprising and incomprehensible extension. It's on its way nowhere Link..

How about Partnering with truth..under grace. Eyes on the media , Wikileaks , Global Research ATS kind of a deal .
If Media lens can point out the hubris and fallacy using secondhand copyright why not point it out .make a disclaimer as to truth. For all we know , only God knows the truth.
now there, I went and confused myself again .

If we were to get to a point where we achieved the truth, where would the conspiracies be?

as someone at times mixed up in this sea of bs thought ,finding a nugget of truth frees me from the error within .To be able to copy and paste something that might not be true records the false .not that there will not be anything that is not reviled but for my posterity's sake I digress. sorry for the rant peace

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:47 PM
Everyone with time should be able to read the interviews linked @ their twitter page ...

I really dont know if they are the good guys, but the truth is that there are so much misinformation out there, that is impossible to know what these guys really think if you dont look straight ...

actually I just saw, they linked this page too in their twitter, I guess they keep all day on the google latest

here you can find a lot of interviews, videos, and pieces on it ...

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:49 PM

this was linked to me by We The PEOPLE

'Leaked Afghan files hid a losing war, not military secrets'

and the recent, as of today, on Russia Today

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange talks to RT



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:56 PM
good piece on BBC posted on their twitter

Lamo talks with BBC ... the hacker ... interesting

[edit on 1/8/10 by Faiol]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by Faiol

It is possible to take hold of and control any institution, and to carry on 180º in the opposite direction. This happened to the United States, so it can happen to wikileaks.

A thing may start out with 100% integrity, and if it makes headway, it will likely be snatched. This is one of the major MO's of the nwo, and I see it everywhere.

I don't know much about wikileaks, just pointing out a fact. It may start out nice, but the trick is to gain control of it without letting on that there's been a change. It's like when a great restaurant has all it's chef's leave...the management pretends that it's the same cooks etc..., but the diners can tell. I'd keep a cautious eye on wikileaks. It's not like the nwo leaves a calling card when there's been a coup, you know.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by davidmann
It is possible to take hold of and control any institution, and to carry on 180º in the opposite direction. This happened to the United States, so it can happen to wikileaks.

As long as Assange is alive and at the helm of Wikileaks, I honestly believe it will remain safely grounded within it's original intent. From what I can gather he's the sort of person that will not be swayed with money or threats... the truth will always be his number 1 motivation, no compromise.

In other words TPTB will have to take him out of the picture if they wish to take control. And even then, seeing this new mysterious "insurance.aes256" file spreading like wildfire, I've got a feeling TPTB are going to have a pretty tough time getting any sort of leverage.

At any rate, Assange has given birth to something more powerful than TPTB would care to admit. A movement, an idea, a platform to facilitate REAL change -- a revolution of sorts -- using the truth to land the fatal blow upon those who would choose to conceal it.

They can kill the man but they cannot stop an idea that's time has come.

This is a lot bigger than just the war in Afghanistan.

This could be the beginning of something real BIG, and I for one will be watching very closely as this unravels.

Interesting times indeed!

[edit on 1/8/10 by Navieko]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by davidmann

I really believe they already did good: they inspired whistle blowers and journalists to seek the truth, so, even if they are not a good organization, they did enough to cause a big impact on the old media ... so, if they are some CIA org or anything like that,but they just shoot themselves in the foot then...

thats why I believe they probably are a genuine organization ...

the reality is that its impossible to know, only time will answer who they really are, but I like what they did until now, so, they deserve the benefit of the doubt

besides, Alex Jones, the guy that slams everyone and find monsters and dirt in every organization said he doesnt really figure it out wikileaks, he doesnt know whats their agenda, he only said that they only did good until now and thats what he knows

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by awake1234
'Leaked Afghan files hid a losing war, not military secrets'

I think this quote says it all really. The more you go through the documents, the more you realise the gravity of how unwinnable this war is. There is one overriding emotion that washes over me when reading these documents and that is sadness. Mostly for the loss of innocent lives. Yes, war kills civilians and that is something that can't be helped. To accept the loss of innocent lives in a conflict which should never have happened is another thing altogether.

In a matter of days, we have been brought up-to-speed about a war that has cost thousand of lives, achieved nothing and run up one hell of tab. The machine worked hard to keep the real picture away from the public eye and now we have insight. We will all form differing opinions, but are we happy for this to continue in our names?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by LarryLove
For a member base that is wary of government and mainstream media, it is curious to know why many people have taken the comments made by the Obama administration and other media outlets accusing Wikileaks of treason and having blood on its hands and reiterated them throughout the discussion threads.

Thats actually really easy to understand if you understand how propaganda works.

If your goal is "discredit Wikileaks" you dont choose just ONE strategy for doing so. You target your audience based on their existing beliefs.

On FOX message boards, for instance, they will claim Wkileaks is a socialist, or liberal, terrorist, or whatever, organization attempting to make the war look bad, and endangering troops, inconsequential etc. Because those people tend to already have the boogey man built up in their heads as being pinko-liberal-terrorist-communists.

On ATS, where paranoia runs high about the government, you discredit Wikileaks by inserting the meme that it is a front, or a trap, or something made up by the PTB to capture or hurt people, and also that the info is endangering the troops or worthless. (Almost no one wants our troops harmed, its sort of a catchall fear to manipulate) We bite, because we want to see conspiracy everywhere.

The bottom line goal remains the same, discredit Wikileaks, and erode trust. Thats one way you can tell by the various messages what the propaganda line is, by asking yourself, "What is being communicated here that is consistent, no matter how superficially different?" The consistent message is, "Wikileaks is harmful, and dangerous. And, what they are leaking is nothing important." That message is the same, no matter how they tailor the propaganda.

Becoming immune to propaganda requires setting your beliefs aside and just looking at the evidence. In a cold, calculating and impassive way. If the message is the same whether it is being sold to Fox Newsies or ATS'ers, odds are, its disinfo and propaganda. Which lends credibility to Wikileaks.

Of course not everyone wants to set aside their pet beliefs to do that. Thinking, rather than believing, requires effort.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:55 PM
Why would the Taliban kill the man who revealed the US' actions to be evil?

This makes absolutely no sense and is horrifically retarded of a statement for the source to say.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

no, they are talking about the witness names presented on the reports by the us soldiers that the wikileaks provided that MAY EXIST, I dont think it was confirmed

[edit on 1/8/10 by Faiol]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Faiol

Like America, many names sound similar and look similar. Was their location provided?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:49 PM

Matthew Kaminski and Bret Stephens ... the docs are 7months old !


Maybe, maybe it will give talibans ( who are afgan ) some notion or info about the armies taking there country a part. It will also give the afgan families who are victims of some military action a reason or some facts about how there families member where kill. Not mentioning the two Reteur journalist who got killed.

Soldier signup for war and there given orders, but not the victims of these soldiers crime. I'm not saying they all criminal, but the leak prove there is a bunch of them in the pack. Maybe some of them have high ranks too.

There are still persecuting WWII war criminal today.... maybe that's what the military is really afraid of. Letting the truth out will destroy them in 5 to 10 years from now.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by truthy-bird]


General Mullen, your "team" will have more blood on there hands then any other gesture or release by wikileaks

[edit on 1-8-2010 by truthy-bird]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by LarryLove

Rupert Murdoch does NOT own the NYT. He owns the NY Post...along with a ton of other media outlets.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:30 PM
Washington Journal did the same sort of thing to Kagan, to sell news.

Remember the thing with the baseball picture being BY another story that was suggestive, then the NY POST picked it up and took it a step further?

Stephen Colbert actually pointed this one out - and he was right if you looked at how it went down.

They didn't violate truth or accuse anyone OUT RIGHT, but it was the placement of the stories that were highly suggestive.

I suspect Julian might be TOO HOT right now. He's selling news and they want to exploit that. I'm glad that often when I watch him speak, he speaks truth well.

I'd just love to see him get out of this defensive position so he'd have more time to speak the message I know he has it in him to speak.

Corrected factual error. Had thought it was NYT but it was the WJ that did that, with the placement.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by hadriana]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:33 PM
RE: Interviews with Lamo > I wouldn't trust anything Lamo would say about WL (or anything, really). He's addicted to prescription meds according to his ex, though anybody can see he's off his face in all the interviews.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Baldur]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by General.Lee
reply to post by LarryLove

Rupert Murdoch does NOT own the NYT. He owns the NY Post...along with a ton of other media outlets.

I was talking about The Times in the UK. It is part of the News Corporation group. Sorry if there was some confusion. The Times hasn't been doing too well for scoops recently and maybe they were getting a little jealous as one poster thought.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in